If you go to a broad enough concept level it is very easy to claim that an idea used by the corporation is 'similar' to one submitted by the outsider. A horse is similar to an airplane because both are 'methods of getting from A to B'. People working within the organisation also resent royalties being paid to an outsider - for a number of reasons. The acceptance of outsider ideas seems to be a reflection on their own inventive abilities. They might themselves have considered (even if not very actively) a similar idea. The rewards they get for their ideas are nothing like the royalties paid to an outsider - so there is much jealousy.
From the outsider's point of view, there are also numerous difficulties. The outsider is not inclined to believe that the organisation is already working on the idea or has at least thought of the idea in the past. As noted, this is only too easy to claim. The idea may be returned and then, later, the organisation comes out with something rather similar. The outsider believes that consciously, or unconsciously, his or her idea has been 'stolen'.
It is easy to see the 'logic bubble' of both parties. It is said that the inventor of the 'Workmate' made something like $10 million in royalties. This is an unusual story and says much for the honesty of Black and Decker.
PROTECTING IDEAS
In order to get around these problems the usual approach is to get the outsider to obtain patent protection first before submitting the idea. This is expensive and takes time. There are also many procedural and marketing concepts which simply cannot be patented. In addition, corporations, like toy companies, insist that the outsider signs a form which acknowledges that the company may already have thought of the idea. Such a form is heavily biased in favour of the company. Non-disclosure letters are also used.
At the same time it must be appreciated that there are a lot of 'crazytivity' people out there who bombard organisations with crazy ideas - and then claim that even vaguely similar ideas are derived from these.
The whole process is extremely unsatisfactory for all parties concerned. On my web-site I am going to ask my Creative Team members, and others, to suggest a better structure and a new form of 'idea contract'.
THE NEED FOR OUTSIDE CREATIVITY
As I have written and said so often recently: competence is becoming a commodity; information is becoming a commodity; state-of-the-art technology is becoming a commodity. This means that what really matters is value creation, and that requires design thinking and creative thinking. More and more information is not the answer. How we get value from information is the answer. More and more technology is not the answer either. How we design 'value concepts' that are then supported by the technology, is the answer. More and more competence is not the answer if no value is being delivered by such competence.
So the emphasis is going to shift to value creation, to concept design and to creative thinking. Any organisation that believes that it can employ the best creative talent available is fooling itself. An organisation could never afford to pay the salaries such people are capable of earning. A truly creative person would never be happy working for just one organisation. It would not make commercial sense for a corporation to 'employ' very creative people in order to use the occasional idea.
COMPETENCE IS NOT ENOUGH
A corporation is a 'bundle of delivery competence'. A corporation is set up and managed in order to turn ideas into delivered value. Peter Drucker put it in a similar way: 'innovation and marketing'. But competence alone is not enough. Competence is like having a beautifully designed kitchen, but no recipes. Competence alone is like having a complete dinner service, but no food on the plates. That is never the case. There is food - but that food may be stodgy and old-fashioned.
I once gave a talk to a major Swiss bank. It had just spent $100 million on information technology. How much had the bank consciously spent on new ideas? Nothing. The amount of money and effort invested in making business competent is not wasted, but competence is a way of delivering something. What is that something?
• Many old ideas are still valid.
• Many old ideas may be valid for ever.
• Many old ideas can be modified and brought up to date.
• There may also be a need for new ideas.
TECHNOLOGY AND IDEAS
I am constantly struck by how far technology is ahead of the value we get from it. Our value concepts are way behind what technology can support and deliver.
When I read books (including Bill Gates's) about what technology will offer in the future, the values suggested are trite and banal. Technology has the scientific push. You can make a material strong - and then you can go on making it stronger. You can make a chip fast - and then you can go on making it faster and faster.
But value design does not have the same linear push. Value design may be a matter of changing concepts, not of pushing the same concept further. Such concept changes require a different sort of thinking. They require lateral thinking. I could sit down and design five value concepts in an hour, and yet someone else may try for a year and develop none.
Our traditional thinking is based on 'what is'. That means judgment, category identification, analysis, etc. Concept and value thinking depend more on challenge and provocation.
DELIVERING VALUE
In my book 'Surpetition' I suggest that traditional competition is only the base-line. It is not enough. Research from INSEAD and Boston Consulting Group supports this suggestion. Organisations that have focused only on competition do badly. Those that focus on value creation do well. In the future the whole concept of 'ideation' is going to become more and more central to business.
Why can the Grameen Bank lend $100 loans with no collateral while every other bank would shy away from this absurd idea?
• But are we willing to treat ideation seriously? No
• Are we willing to pay for ideas? No.
• Are we willing to invest in ideas? No
• Do we know how to handle ideas? No.
There is the myth that delivery competence is all that matters and that a steady stream of ideas will always come from 'inventors' and crazy-haired 'eccentrics'. R&D departments are not usually set up to produce 'value concepts'. They are usually driven by technology push. And so they should be. The R&D Department should be asked to make possible, feasible and cost-effective any value concept put before it.
The value concept can be pitched at different levels such as:
• a more fuel-efficient car;
• an electric car;
• a hybrid car;
• a new energy concept car.
I am too often told that organisations have more ideas than they can handle - so there is no need for more ideas. This only means that they have no 'good ideas'. You can never have too many ideas. You use your judgment and investment profile to pick the best ideas. Two hundred moderate ideas are not the equivalent of one good idea. If you needed brain surgery, would two hundred general practitioners do instead of one brain surgeon?
THE FUTURE
There will be an increasing need to treat the matter of 'ideation' much more seriously than in the past. Perhaps there could be a commission set up to look at the matter. I am willing to work with any corporation or organisation that realises the importance of this matter.
Submitted by Edward de Bono on Sat, 2006-07-08 21:18.
http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/creativity-future.php
No comments:
Post a Comment